It's the way I normally like to do it.
What I mean is, if you see a film of a book before reading the book, you don't sit there shouting at the screen.
For example, I saw "Trainspotting" before reading the book. I enjoyed the film imensly and read the book after. I also thought the book was great as well but if I had read it first I would have watched the film and been going "Hang on! what about the scene in the pub leading up to this? And he never said that! and where is that character and why is so and so not in it!"
Without reading the book I just enjoyed the film for what it was, and on reading the book I got to see that it would have been a harder task to film it as it was written, and maybe a bit too long. So I got the maximum pleasure from both.
But sometimes this does not work.
For example, I am now reading "Frankenstein" By Mary Shelly. Never read it before but of course I have seen loads of films of the book and so on.
I always thought the creature was created in a thunderstorm amid much drama and sparking lab equipment, and there was an "igor" running about doing the old "Yeth massssthcer!" stuff.
But no.
In fact it goes thusly:
"It was already one in the morning; the rain pattered dismally against the panes, and my candle was nearly burnt out, when, by the glimmer of the half- extinguished light, I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open"
And the creature, although horrible to the sight of poor vicy baby, has a full head of dark hair and is apparently quite good looking. Not bolts through the neck, no "flat top" head do, no big clumpy boots....
Curse you Hollywood!
And curse my tardiness in getting round to reading the book. I could have sat at home screaming "That's bollocks that is" at all those Frankenstien movies on the tv.......
Mind you, I did enjoy all that windmill burning and angry villagers malarky in the film......












